The aim of the report is to provide a more in-depth analysis of the multi-sectoral CFM program managed by CCCM. The analysis is done predominately by sector to support all service providers working in displacement sites understanding of community feedback. It is important for the humanitarian response to be operationally accountable for our collective response to community feedback.

This analysis is automatically generated every quarter for each Camp Coordination and Camp Management program using Zite Manager to support their multi-sectoral Community Feedback Mechanism.

This section needs some additions and editing. The following should be added:

The reporting period of the report
A brief on how to read the report linking to the methododology and terminology section at the end of the report
Contact details to find out more about the report and to provide feedback

Warning

This analysis is in a draft stage. Content and structure are subject to change, and the calculations will undergo verification before publication

1 Key highlights

Manually extract 3 to 4 key highlights from the analysis. For example:

In the first quarter of 2024, X tickets were recieived Y% of which were resolved.
The number of tickets represent a X% increase/decrease on the previous quarter.
The top 3 issues raised were X, Y and Z, withthe highest number of tickets relating to the X sector.
Any noticable change in trends.

Figure 1: Overview map

2 Overview

Over the reporting period 408 community feedback tickets were received by 34 CCCM staff working across 54 CCCM managed sites. The amount of feedback received has TBC by TBC% compared to last quarter. Most feedback was attributed to the following sectors: WASH, SNFI, FSL.

Of the feedback submitted, 54.4% of total tickets submitted by women and 45.3% submitted by men. The most common feedback channel used is Help desk with 45.6% of feedback reported this way.

Of the total feedback received, 355 tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and 47 tickets were closed upon receipt . Of the feedback referred, WASH received the most referrals.

Warning

A sankey flow diagram will be added here to show the flow of tickets through the various stages of the CFM

Referrals by Sector
sector	count
Nutrition	7
Protection	36
WASH	79
	2
FSL	76
Education	10
Health	41
CCCM	26
SNFI	78
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 2: Referrals by Sector

Of the referred feedback, {active_tickets} tickets were still being processed at time of report generation with {count_open} Open and {count_inpro} in-progress. Another, {count_response} tickets had received a response from the service provider, but CCCM has yet to close the feedback loop and inform the person of the provider’s response. The most common responses from service providers are as follows: by the service providers were {response_1st and perc_response_1st}, {response_2nd and perc_response_2nd}, and {response_3rd and perc_response_3rd}. {top_sector_response_r8} has the highest response rate compared to {last_sector_response_r8}.

Referrals and resolution rate by Sector
sector	referred	resolved	% resolved
Education	10	1	10%
Protection	36	2	6%
Health	41	5	12%
WASH	79	4	5%
SNFI	78	1	1%
CCCM	26	3	12%
FSL	76	5	7%
	2	0	0%
Nutrition	7	1	14%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 3: Referrals and resolution rate by Sector

Within the reporting period, {perc_replied_tickets} % of referred tickets were closed by CCCM – meaning that CCCM followed up with the person after completing the referral. On average it took {daydiff_reply} days from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. Average resolution times varied by sector: sector_1_avg, sector_2_avg, sector 3_avg,

Of the {count_replies} replies completed, {resolved_tickets_prov} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {resolved_tickets_indv} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback .

The below table breaks down the resolution rates as reported by the service provider and the affected person who provided the feedback. By resolution, we understand it means the person has been provided with an adequate solution that addresses their feedback. For many reasons, people may not be able to receive assistance because of eligibility, funding or other operational constraints. The table below also contains percentage of cases where both service provider and affected person report the issue as resolved. A low percentage of confirmed resolution rates suggests a possible communication issue between CCCM and the service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or a combination of both. To find out more about this see the methods section here.

Comparison of replies and resolution by service providers and affected population
sector	replied	resolved by SP¹	resolved by AP²	resolved both	% resolved both
Health	22	5	7	1	9%
FSL	61	5	11	2	14%
SNFI	44	1	10	0	0%
Education	8	1	4	1	25%
Protection	20	2	1	0	0%
CCCM	19	3	5	0	0%
	0	0	0	0	NaN
Nutrition	3	1	0	0	0%
WASH	60	4	31	4	13%
¹ Reported resolved by the service provider. ² Reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 6: Comparison of replies and resolution by service providers and affected population

The rate of resolution according to service providers reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. {Name of sector} has the highest resolution rate when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.

The table below shows the top 5 feedback topics that were referred during this reporting period with {top feedback_about named here} as the top feedback received. This type of assistance saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.

Top 5 referred feedback
feedback_about	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
Food Ration	59	48	81%	2006	17%	5%
NFI Kits or items	29	21	72%	986	10%	0%
HH Shelter Repairs	23	11	48%	782	9%	4%
Latrine	19	14	74%	646	32%	0%
Dignity Kit	19	15	79%	646	5%	11%
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 7: Top 5 referred feedback

Of the issues that have been closed, { perc_replied_expired_tickets} % of these issues CCCM did not receive a response from the responsible service provider. CCCM limits the time service providers must respond in 30 days to ensure the feedback loop is closed in a timely manner, and prevent tickets being left open indefinitely. During the follow-up for expired tickets, people are always provided a chance to report their issue again if it is still relevant. During this period, there was an XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period.

Ticket expiry by Sector
sector	referred	expired	expiry rate
FSL	76	42	55%
	2	1	50%
Education	10	5	50%
Nutrition	7	3	43%
SNFI	78	32	41%
WASH	79	28	35%
CCCM	26	9	35%
Health	41	10	24%
Protection	36	8	22%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 8: Ticket expiry by Sector

3 Sectors

This section provides analysis of each sector, providing an overview of the main feddback to each sector, their reply and response performance as well as a breakdown by region.

3.1 CCCM

3.1.1 Overview

Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.

Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.

For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current	referred	replied	% replied
Pending	2	2	100%
Closed upon receipt	3	3	100%
Can't Resolve	1	1	100%
Lack of Funding	2	2	100%
Resolved	3	3	100%
No Response	9	8	89%
	6	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 9: CCCM Sectoral reply rate

Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.

On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.

Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.

The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.

CCCM - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
Communal Kitchen	6	4	67%	72	33%	17%
Solar street Lights	6	6	100%	44	17%	0%
Site Maintenance	3	1	33%	275	33%	0%
SSSMT Kit	2	2	100%	92	50%	0%
Campaigns & Activities & Trainings	2	2	100%	37	0%	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 11: CCCM Comparison of tickets by topic

Note

For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”

The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.

CCCM - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback	referred	replied	resolved by SP¹	resolved by AP²	resolved by either	resolved by both	% resolved by both
Solar street Lights	6	6	0	1	1	0	0%
Communal Kitchen	6	4	1	2	3	0	0%
Site Maintenance	3	1	0	1	1	0	0%
Campaigns & Activities & Trainings	2	2	0	0	0	0	0%
SSSMT Kit	2	2	0	1	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 12: CCCM Comparison of replies and resolution

Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.

CCCM - Ticket expiry
referred	expired	expiry rate
26	9	35%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 13: CCCM Ticket expiry

3.1.2 Region

The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.

When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 14: CCCM regional map

Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.

CCCM - feedback per region
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
SNNP	6	6	100%	66	33%	0%
Oromia	5	4	80%	177	40%	20%
Somali	1	0	0%	None	0%	0%
Tigray	14	9	64%	23	7%	14%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 15: CCCM feedback per region

Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.

The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.

CCCM - feedback - top 3 topics
Region	Site Maintenance	Solar street Lights	Communal Kitchen
Oromia	2	1	1
SNNP	None	2	1
Tigray	1	3	3
Somali	None	None	1
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 16: CCCM feedback - top 3 topics

The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.

CCCM - reply time
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	quickest reply (days)	slowest reply (days)
Oromia	5	4	80%	177	0	299
Tigray	14	9	64%	23	0	64
SNNP	6	6	100%	66	30	121
Somali	1	0	0%	0	0	0
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending

Figure 17: CCCM reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

CCCM - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region	referred	replied	resolved by AP²	resolved by SP¹	resolved_both	% resolved by both
Tigray	14	9	1	2	0	0%
Somali	1	0	0	0	0	NaN
SNNP	6	6	2	0	0	0%
Oromia	5	4	2	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 18: CCCM comparison of replies and resolution per Region

For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.

3.2 Education

3.2.1 Overview

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current	referred	replied	% replied
No Agency or Service	1	1	100%
Resolved	1	1	100%
Closed upon receipt	1	1	100%
No Response	5	5	100%
	2	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 19: Education Sectoral reply rate

Figure 20: Education referral response time

Education - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
School materials and equipment (books, uniform etc.)	8	6	75%	42	38%	12%
School Feeding Program	1	1	100%	30	100%	0%
School	1	1	100%	49	0%	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 21: Education Comparison of tickets by topic

Note

Education - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback	referred	replied	resolved by SP¹	resolved by AP²	resolved by either	resolved by both	% resolved by both
School materials and equipment (books, uniform etc.)	8	6	1	3	3	1	12%
School	1	1	0	0	0	0	0%
School Feeding Program	1	1	0	1	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 22: Education Comparison of replies and resolution

Education - Ticket expiry
referred	expired	expiry rate
10	5	50%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 23: Education Ticket expiry

3.2.2 Region

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 24: Education regional map

Education - feedback per region
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
SNNP	3	3	100%	49	67%	0%
Tigray	3	3	100%	42	0%	0%
Somali	2	0	0%	None	0%	0%
Oromia	2	2	100%	59	100%	50%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 25: Education feedback per region

Education - feedback - top 3 topics
Region	School Feeding Program	School	School materials and equipment (books, uniform etc.)
SNNP	1	1	1
Oromia	None	None	2
Somali	None	None	2
Tigray	None	None	3
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 26: Education feedback - top 3 topics

Education - reply time
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	quickest reply (days)	slowest reply (days)
SNNP	3	3	100%	49	30	121
Somali	2	0	0%	0	0	0
Oromia	2	2	100%	59	13	105
Tigray	3	3	100%	42	35	43
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending

Figure 27: Education reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

Education - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region	referred	replied	resolved by AP²	resolved by SP¹	resolved_both	% resolved by both
SNNP	3	3	2	0	0	0%
Somali	2	0	0	0	0	NaN
Oromia	2	2	2	1	1	50%
Tigray	3	3	0	0	0	NaN
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 28: Education comparison of replies and resolution per Region

3.3 FSL

3.3.1 Overview

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current	referred	replied	% replied
No Agency or Service	4	4	100%
Resolved	5	5	100%
Lack of Funding	11	11	100%
Pending	1	1	100%
No Response	42	37	88%
	12	3	25%
Can't Resolve	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 29: FSL Sectoral reply rate

FSL - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
Food Ration	59	48	81%	33	17%	5%
Cash Assistance for Food	8	8	100%	47	12%	12%
Supplementary Food Support	4	2	50%	33	0%	0%
Agriculture (farming, gardening and seeds)	2	1	50%	49	0%	0%
Income activities	2	2	100%	93	0%	50%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 31: FSL Comparison of tickets by topic

Note

FSL - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback	referred	replied	resolved by SP¹	resolved by AP²	resolved by either	resolved by both	% resolved by both
Food Ration	59	48	3	10	12	1	2%
Cash Assistance for Food	8	8	1	1	1	1	12%
Supplementary Food Support	4	2	0	0	0	0	0%
Agriculture (farming, gardening and seeds)	2	1	0	0	0	0	0%
Income activities	2	2	1	0	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 32: FSL Comparison of replies and resolution

FSL - Ticket expiry
referred	expired	expiry rate
76	42	55%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 33: FSL Ticket expiry

3.3.2 Region

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 34: FSL regional map

FSL - feedback per region
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
Somali	23	21	91%	32	13%	0%
SNNP	13	9	69%	47	8%	0%
Oromia	19	19	100%	53	26%	11%
Tigray	21	12	57%	33	10%	14%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 35: FSL feedback per region

FSL - feedback - top 3 topics
Region	Food Ration	Cash Assistance for Food	Supplementary Food Support
Oromia	15	1	None
SNNP	5	5	2
Somali	21	None	2
Tigray	18	2	None
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 36: FSL feedback - top 3 topics

FSL - reply time
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	quickest reply (days)	slowest reply (days)
Somali	23	21	91%	32	0	176
Oromia	19	19	100%	53	9	112
SNNP	13	9	69%	47	0	123
Tigray	21	12	57%	33	0	42
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending

Figure 37: FSL reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

FSL - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region	referred	replied	resolved by AP²	resolved by SP¹	resolved_both	% resolved by both
Oromia	19	19	5	2	1	17%
Tigray	21	12	2	3	1	25%
Somali	23	21	3	0	0	0%
SNNP	13	9	1	0	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 38: FSL comparison of replies and resolution per Region

3.4 Health

3.4.1 Overview

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current	referred	replied	% replied
Closed upon receipt	2	2	100%
Can't Resolve	1	1	100%
Can t Verify	1	1	100%
No Response	10	8	80%
Resolved	5	3	60%
	21	7	33%
Lack of Funding	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 39: Health Sectoral reply rate

Figure 40: Health referral response time

Health - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
MHPSS	10	5	50%	7	0%	30%
Mobile Health	9	6	67%	80	44%	0%
Health Clinic (inside camp)	8	3	38%	39	12%	0%
Emergency Transport (general)	5	3	60%	47	0%	0%
Health Post	3	1	33%	1	0%	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 41: Health Comparison of tickets by topic

Note

Health - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback	referred	replied	resolved by SP¹	resolved by AP²	resolved by either	resolved by both	% resolved by both
MHPSS	10	5	3	0	3	0	0%
Mobile Health	9	6	0	4	4	0	0%
Health Clinic (inside camp)	8	3	0	1	1	0	0%
Emergency Transport (general)	5	3	0	0	0	0	0%
Health Clinic (outside camp)	3	1	1	0	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 42: Health Comparison of replies and resolution

Health - Ticket expiry
referred	expired	expiry rate
41	10	24%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 43: Health Ticket expiry

3.4.2 Region

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 44: Health regional map

Health - feedback per region
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
SNNP	8	7	88%	54	12%	0%
Somali	14	3	21%	30	0%	14%
Tigray	19	12	63%	18	32%	16%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 45: Health feedback per region

Health - feedback - top 3 topics
Region	MHPSS	Mobile Health	Health Clinic (inside camp)
SNNP	1	2	None
Somali	5	1	3
Tigray	4	6	5
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 46: Health feedback - top 3 topics

Health - reply time
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	quickest reply (days)	slowest reply (days)
Somali	14	3	21%	30	0	39
SNNP	8	7	88%	54	0	121
Tigray	19	12	63%	18	0	98
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending

Figure 47: Health reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

Health - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region	referred	replied	resolved by AP²	resolved by SP¹	resolved_both	% resolved by both
Somali	14	3	0	2	0	0%
Tigray	19	12	6	3	1	12%
SNNP	8	7	1	0	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 48: Health comparison of replies and resolution per Region

3.5 Shelter & NFI

3.5.1 Overview

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current	referred	replied	% replied
Closed upon receipt	2	2	100%
No Agency or Service	11	11	100%
Lack of Funding	2	2	100%
Resolved	1	1	100%
No Response	32	25	78%
	26	3	12%
Pending	3	0	0%
Not eligible	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 49: SNFI Sectoral reply rate

SNFI - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
NFI Kits or items	29	21	72%	33	10%	0%
HH Shelter Repairs	23	11	48%	30	9%	4%
Construction of New Shelter	13	7	54%	64	23%	0%
	5	1	20%	275	0%	0%
Shelter Materials or Kits	4	2	50%	57	0%	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 51: SNFI Comparison of tickets by topic

Note

SNFI - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback	referred	replied	resolved by SP¹	resolved by AP²	resolved by either	resolved by both	% resolved by both
NFI Kits or items	29	21	0	3	3	0	0%
HH Shelter Repairs	23	11	1	2	3	0	0%
Construction of New Shelter	13	7	0	3	3	0	0%
	5	1	0	0	0	0	0%
Shelter Materials or Kits	4	2	0	0	0	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 52: SNFI Comparison of replies and resolution

SNFI - Ticket expiry
referred	expired	expiry rate
78	32	41%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 53: SNFI Ticket expiry

3.5.2 Region

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 54: SNFI regional map

SNFI - feedback per region
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
Tigray	41	21	51%	32	0%	2%
Somali	13	5	38%	34	15%	0%
Oromia	11	10	91%	53	36%	0%
SNNP	13	8	62%	122	31%	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 55: SNFI feedback per region

SNFI - feedback - top 3 topics
Region	NFI Kits or items	Construction of New Shelter	HH Shelter Repairs
Oromia	6	2	2
SNNP	1	3	6
Tigray	15	6	15
Somali	7	2	None
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 56: SNFI feedback - top 3 topics

SNFI - reply time
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	quickest reply (days)	slowest reply (days)
Oromia	11	10	91%	53	0	275
Tigray	41	21	51%	32	0	43
SNNP	13	8	62%	122	0	124
Somali	13	5	38%	34	0	49
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending

Figure 57: SNFI reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

SNFI - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region	referred	replied	resolved by AP²	resolved by SP¹	resolved_both	% resolved by both
Somali	13	5	2	0	0	0%
SNNP	13	8	4	0	0	0%
Oromia	11	10	4	0	0	0%
Tigray	41	21	0	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 58: SNFI comparison of replies and resolution per Region

3.6 Nutrition

3.6.1 Overview

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current	referred	replied	% replied
Lack of Funding	1	1	100%
Not eligible	1	1	100%
No Response	3	1	33%
Resolved	1	0	0%
	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 59: Nutrition Sectoral reply rate

Figure 60: Nutrition referral response time

Nutrition - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
Nutrition Supplements and support	6	3	50%	47	0%	17%
	1	0	0%	None	0%	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 61: Nutrition Comparison of tickets by topic

Note

Nutrition - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback	referred	replied	resolved by SP¹	resolved by AP²	resolved by either	resolved by both	% resolved by both
Nutrition Supplements and support	6	3	1	0	1	0	0%
	1	0	0	0	0	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 62: Nutrition Comparison of replies and resolution

Nutrition - Ticket expiry
referred	expired	expiry rate
7	3	43%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 63: Nutrition Ticket expiry

3.6.2 Region

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 64: Nutrition regional map

Nutrition - feedback per region
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
SNNP	3	1	33%	47	0%	0%
Oromia	1	1	100%	79	0%	0%
Somali	2	1	50%	35	0%	50%
Tigray	1	0	0%	None	0%	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 65: Nutrition feedback per region

Nutrition - feedback - top 3 topics
Region	Nutrition Supplements and support
SNNP	3	None
Oromia	1	None
Somali	2	None
Tigray	None	1
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 66: Nutrition feedback - top 3 topics

Nutrition - reply time
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	quickest reply (days)	slowest reply (days)
SNNP	3	1	33%	47	0	47
Somali	2	1	50%	35	0	35
Oromia	1	1	100%	79	79	79
Tigray	1	0	0%	0	0	0
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending

Figure 67: Nutrition reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

Nutrition - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region	referred	replied	resolved by AP²	resolved by SP¹	resolved_both	% resolved by both
SNNP	3	1	0	0	0	NaN
Tigray	1	0	0	0	0	NaN
Oromia	1	1	0	0	0	NaN
Somali	2	1	0	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 68: Nutrition comparison of replies and resolution per Region

3.7 Protection

3.7.1 Overview

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current	referred	replied	% replied
Resolved	2	2	100%
Can't Resolve	5	4	80%
No Response	8	6	75%
Lack of Funding	9	5	56%
	11	3	27%
No Agency or Service	1	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 69: Protection Sectoral reply rate

Figure 70: Protection referral response time

Protection - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
Dignity Kit	19	15	79%	28	5%	11%
Disability support	5	0	0%	None	0%	0%
Child Friendly Spaces	5	1	20%	32	0%	0%
Support for ID or documentation	3	1	33%	34	0%	0%
Other (Protection	1	1	100%	2	0%	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 71: Protection Comparison of tickets by topic

Note

Protection - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback	referred	replied	resolved by SP¹	resolved by AP²	resolved by either	resolved by both	% resolved by both
Dignity Kit	19	15	2	1	3	0	0%
Disability support	5	0	0	0	0	0	0%
Child Friendly Spaces	5	1	0	0	0	0	0%
Support for ID or documentation	3	1	0	0	0	0	0%
Other (Protection	1	1	0	0	0	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 72: Protection Comparison of replies and resolution

Protection - Ticket expiry
referred	expired	expiry rate
36	8	22%
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 73: Protection Ticket expiry

3.7.2 Region

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 74: Protection regional map

Protection - feedback per region
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
Oromia	1	1	100%	34	0%	0%
Somali	17	10	59%	30	0%	12%
SNNP	2	1	50%	38	0%	0%
Tigray	16	8	50%	2	6%	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 75: Protection feedback per region

Protection - feedback - top 3 topics
Region	Dignity Kit	Disability support	Child Friendly Spaces
SNNP	2	None	None
Somali	10	4	3
Tigray	7	1	2
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 76: Protection feedback - top 3 topics

Protection - reply time
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	quickest reply (days)	slowest reply (days)
SNNP	2	1	50%	38	0	38
Somali	17	10	59%	30	0	57
Oromia	1	1	100%	34	34	34
Tigray	16	8	50%	2	0	47
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending

Figure 77: Protection reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

Protection - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region	referred	replied	resolved by AP²	resolved by SP¹	resolved_both	% resolved by both
Oromia	1	1	0	0	0	NaN
Somali	17	10	0	2	0	0%
SNNP	2	1	0	0	0	NaN
Tigray	16	8	1	0	0	0%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 78: Protection comparison of replies and resolution per Region

4 Regions

Feedback per region
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	% resolved by AP²	% resolved by SP¹
SNNP	60	47	78%	63	23%	0%
Somali	88	49	56%	32	11%	7%
Tigray	137	80	58%	30	12%	7%
Oromia	70	61	87%	53	40%	9%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 79: Feedback per region

Feedback - top 3 topics
Region	NFI Kits or items	Food Ration	HH Shelter Repairs
Oromia	6	15	2
SNNP	1	5	6
Somali	7	21	None
Tigray	15	18	15
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 80: Feedback - top 3 topics

Reply time
Region	referred	replied	% replied	median days-to-reply	quickest reply (days)	slowest reply (days)
Oromia	70	61	87%	53	0	299
SNNP	60	47	78%	63	0	124
Somali	88	49	56%	32	0	176
Tigray	137	80	58%	30	0	98
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending

Figure 81: Reply time

Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region	referred	replied	resolved by AP²	resolved by SP¹	resolved_both	% resolved by both
Tigray	137	80	17	10	3	12%
SNNP	60	47	14	0	0	0%
Somali	88	49	10	6	1	7%
Oromia	70	61	28	6	4	13%
Source: IOM & partners
¹ % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider ² % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback

Figure 82: Reply time

5 Sites

Tigray - Sites
site_id	site name	referred	replied	resolved	median days-to-reply	link
ET010707001001	Sebacare 4	28	19	2	30	dashboard
ET010108005002	Tsehaye Elementary school	13	7	0	2	dashboard
ET010212004004	Nigste Saba Secondary School	12	10	3	8	dashboard
ET010308003001	Commission	11	11	0	33	dashboard
ET010108001001	Guna Poultry Farm	11	2	0	63	dashboard
ET010308002001	UNMEE	10	5	0	35	dashboard
ET010212001001	Adwa industrial Zone (AIZ)	8	8	4	23	dashboard
ET010706003001	Lekatit 23 Secondary School	7	4	1	35	dashboard
ET010212004005	Nigste Saba Secondary School 2	7	3	0	9	dashboard
ET010706001001	Adiha Secondary School	7	4	0	42	dashboard
ET010108002002	Atsede Kindergarten	6	3	0	12	dashboard
ET010212001002	Wowokma Elementary school	5	0	0	None	dashboard
ET010108004003	Taba Weyane Tsinat Primary School	4	3	0	2	dashboard
ET010212005002	Korea Secondary School	3	0	0	None	dashboard
ET010212002001	Enda Tsion Elementary School	2	0	0	None	dashboard
ET010108002003	Fre Swuat Secondary school	2	0	0	None	dashboard
ET010706002002	Mesebo Secondary School	1	1	0	47	dashboard
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 83: Tigray sites

Somali - Sites
site_id	site name	referred	replied	resolved	median days-to-reply	link
ET010702004001	Momona Secondary School	23	19	3	32	dashboard
ET010704001002	Lekatit 11 Elementary School	14	10	0	32	dashboard
ET010114001001	Endabaguna Screening Center	9	4	0	33	dashboard
ET010114001004	Endabaguna Reception Center	7	2	0	42	dashboard
ET010108004004	Shire Kebele 03 - ABA	7	6	0	30	dashboard
ET010212001001_temp	Adwa Debrichi Kebele - ABA	6	0	0	None	dashboard
ET010108002004	Shire Kebele 02 - ABA	6	2	0	27	dashboard
ET010108005001	Midregenet Secondary School	5	2	0	49	dashboard
ET010212009001	Adwa Miebale Kebele - ABA	5	0	2	None	dashboard
ET010111001001	Adi Daero Elementary School	3	2	0	45	dashboard
ET041015001002	Wara Yaya/Sheik Madobe/	1	1	0	176	dashboard
ET010212003001	Adwa Hayelom Kebele - ABA	1	0	1	None	dashboard
ET010110001002	Farmers Training Center	1	1	0	7	dashboard
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 84: Somali sites

SNNP - Sites
site_id	site name	referred	replied	resolved	median days-to-reply	link
ET071302004002	Lultu Magazine	23	19	0	47	dashboard
ET071302003001	Gelabo FTC	15	12	0	121	dashboard
ET071302004001	Kutiso Market	7	4	0	56	dashboard
ET071303002001	Gomola	5	2	0	85	dashboard
ET071302002001	Balbala	4	4	0	123	dashboard
ET071302001001	Ayilota Dokatu	3	3	0	54	dashboard
ET071303004001	Segen Mezegaja	3	3	0	124	dashboard
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 85: SNNP sites

Oromia - Sites
site_id	site name	referred	replied	resolved	median days-to-reply	link
ET050203001002	Qoliji 2	12	4	0	53	dashboard
ET041011001003	New Golmasa	8	8	1	91	dashboard
ET041015003001	Tiro Gudo New	7	7	2	41	dashboard
ET041009001001	Chelenko food store	6	6	0	41	dashboard
ET041011002001	Fadiso	5	5	0	53	dashboard
ET040903001002	Tulo Town (Hirna Town)	5	5	0	21	dashboard
ET041010001002	Ali Sheko Camp	4	4	0	17	dashboard
ET041010002001	Karamile	4	4	1	13	dashboard
ET050203001001	Qoliji	4	4	0	51	dashboard
ET041011001006	Woreda Water Office	3	3	1	105	dashboard
ET041010001001	Agricultural Office	3	2	0	16	dashboard
ET041011001007	Woreda Youth Association Hall	2	2	1	96	dashboard
ET041008001001	Kersa Town	2	2	0	50	dashboard
ET040908001001	Gelemso 01	2	2	0	32	dashboard
ET041010003001	Ganda Wagayehu	1	1	0	16	dashboard
ET040903001001	New Extension Site	1	1	0	275	dashboard
ET041015004001	Wara Somane	1	1	0	49	dashboard
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 86: Oromia sites

6 Context & approach

Sentences about the context and the CFM program ran by CCCM provided by the mission. Any updates or changes to the program since last report. - Overall number of sites - Number of agencies - Number of CCCM staff (F/M)

Sentence here by mission explaining the feedback channels used and if there are difference in approach in different location. The channels used for collection and replies.

Of the feedback submitted, the top common feedback channels used by the affected population to reach CCCM to provide their feedback are {top_channel_1} (Name & Percent), {top_channel_2} (Name & Percent), and {top_channel_3} (Name & Percent).

Those reporting feedback are more likely to report issues on behalf of {name_top_feedback_rep1} (Name & Percent), followed by {name_top_feedback_rep2} (Name & Percent) and {name_top_feedback_rep3} (Name & Percent).

Channel usage by groups
channel	For themselves	For group of people or community	For somebody else	Entire site or block
Help desk	132	33	12	9
CCCM Mobile Collector	84	69	14	17
Community Committee	8	8	2	4
Community Meeting	5	5	2	3
Referral from another agency / team / govt	1	0	0	0
Source: IOM & partners

Figure 87: Channel usage by groups

The below chart displays the affected population preferences of the feedback channels available by the {countdist_siteid} locations where CCCM is operating.

Often different demographics groups have different preferences and abilities which impact their access and usages of the available feedback channels. In this reporting period, men reached CCCM through {men_top_channel} feedback channel and {wmn_top_channel} for women, with {prop_wmn_submission} of tickets submitted by women and {prop_men_submission} submitted by men. The most feedback came from {name_topgender_1} between the ages of {topgender_age_group}, followed by {name_topgender_2} between the ages of {topgender2_age_group}, and {name_topgender_3} between the ages of {topgender3_age_group}.

The below charts outline the preferences and access of vulnerable households and vulnerable individuals such as those with disabilities or households with pregnant or lactating women to the feedback channels.

When following up with the person who provide the feedback, the most common way CCCM provides replies are {top_channel_1} (Name & Percent), and {top_channel_2} (Name & Percent). CCCM will also try to reach the person who reported the feedback directly either over the phone or in-person. However, if the person can’t be contacted neighbours, other family members pr community leaders are requested to pass the message on to the person on CCCM’s behalf. There is no significant difference between the demographic of the person who reported the feedback and the reply channel used. This is because CCCM staff are instructed to follow same protocol when completing replies: first try direct contact in-person or by phone (if a phone number was provided), and if this is unsuccessful to try and contact people connected to the individual. Then after XX attempts over multiple days if no contact is made with the person or any related contacts, the case can be closed without a reply.

7 Methodology

The report contains the analysis of the non-sensitive, operational feedback received by CCCM actors using Zite Manager. The community feedback is gathered and managed through the platform, Zite Manager, which helps tracks information about feedback across the entire referral process, including the response given by the relevant service providers and whether the person received a follow-up with this information.

The data directly reflects the daily activity of the CCCM actors, and the responses from the service providers receiving the feedback. The system is live, and the results change as feedback moves through the system.

The report is designed to be used by all humanitarian responders to support continued improvement of how the humanitarian system responses to community feedback.

To see the live operational CFM dashboard which updates daily and is designed to support CCCM teams manage feedback and coordination with other partners - www.zitemanager.org/countries

Please note the following while reading this report:

Community feedback is not a needs assessment: Do not use community feedback alone to compare needs between areas because different populations have different awareness and access to CFM systems. This information should be complimented by needs assessments and service monitoring data to gain an overall understanding of needs.

Community feedback is dynamic data that changes: CCCM and service providers are actively processing feedback daily. Only closed tickets will remain the same as no more action is required. So, the total number of active tickets (tickets with a status of open, in-process or responded) will change daily and the date the report is generate will input this number. This means the numbers change as tickets move through the CFM cycle.

Referrals are the responsibility of CCCM actors: Referrals are automatically generated and organized by sector through the system; however the actual transfer of referral data is under management of individual CCCM actors. If service providers are not receiving referrals but think they should be, please contact the related CCCM actor to discuss with them.

There are a number of reasons feedback may go unresolved: This may be due to funding, contextual reasons, access, technical feasibility, targeting criteria, and other informationem.

7.1 Terminology

Ticket: Each piece of feedback or ticket represents one issue, need or report only. Community feedback is not collected by household, so one person or household may have reported more than one problem. For example, having lost their ID and missed a distribution. One issue could also represent a problem faced by more than one person or household, such as a broken water tap.

Received: Total pieces of feedback (also known as tickets) that were received in the reporting period.

Referred: Tickets that were referred to sector partners for their assessment, action (if possible) and response. Not all tickets are referred depending on the type of feedback reported. If a ticket is Referred or not is based on the CFM sector standards circulated by CCCM cluster/sector.

Closed Upon Receipt: Are tickets that are not referred because they are addressed immediately, or we know it cannot be resolved (e.g., no agency providing that service), the ticket is “closed upon receipt” and is not referred.

Responded awaiting reply: Tickets that have received a response from an service providers but the response has not been provided to the person who reported the problem yet. CCCM partners have a commitment towards following-up with affected persons and closing the feedback loop.

Expired or ‘No Response’: If no response is received by the responsible service provider within 30 days of referral, the ticket is marked as having “No Response” and is sent automatically for follow-up. This means that CCCM must explain to the person that a response could not be obtained from the service provider and the ticket is closed.

Responses by Service Provider: To support analysis, service provider’s responses are coded according to a list of common reasons why a piece of feedback could not be addressed. Resolved means the service provider has resolved the issue.

Reported Resolution by the affected population: During the follow up, people have a chance to report whether the response has resolved their issue (Yes, No, Partially or Don’t know). This information is then visualized to record people’s perception of whether their feedback is resolved.

The analysis also compares the two resolution rates to communicate the percentage of cases where both service provider and affected person report the issue as resolved.

When interpreting these figures, it is important to understand that a low percentage of confirmed resolution rates suggests a possible communication issue between CCCM and the service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or a combination of both. For example, if there is no response from the service provider to CCCM, the ticket it is not considered resolved by service provider, but the person who reported the feedback might report the feedback as resolved for other reasons. However, we don’t expect to see a 100% confirmation rate for resolution because it is normal to see differences. For example, the service provider might consider their actions to a piece of feedback to be a resolution, but the person who reported the feedback might not agree and reported the feedback as partially resolved or unresolved.